'Skyfall' re-ignited me as a fan. What about you?

189101113

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Lemme tell ya my story.
    When I was 11 I saw ads on TV for what looked like a very
    cool movie so I bitched & moaned & got my Mom to take me to it. So after I saw DAF I wanted to see more Bond. After a few years I'd seen all the Bonds in theatrical revivals (except OHMSS) and was a good fan. During the Moore years I became irritated at the lighter approach. I bought all the novels but never got around to reading them. I became a lazy fan. Dalton did not impress me much as he looked like he wasn't having that much fun being a Double-O, and I'd wanted my man Remington Steele in there anyway. Then the long wait. Then I saw the trailer for Goldeneye, and the fuse was lit! A short time later I saw the movie and sure & certain re-ignition took place. I then read all the Fleming novels before TND came out.

    Thanks Pierce, for the Bond caffeine this sleepy fan needed!

    Wow, it's crazy how much your opinion changed regarding Dalton. If you went back in time and told your younger self just how much you'd love TLD and LTK later in life, what do you think your response would've been?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited January 2015 Posts: 17,798
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Lemme tell ya my story.
    When I was 11 I saw ads on TV for what looked like a very
    cool movie so I bitched & moaned & got my Mom to take me to it. So after I saw DAF I wanted to see more Bond. After a few years I'd seen all the Bonds in theatrical revivals (except OHMSS) and was a good fan. During the Moore years I became irritated at the lighter approach. I bought all the novels but never got around to reading them. I became a lazy fan. Dalton did not impress me much as he looked like he wasn't having that much fun being a Double-O, and I'd wanted my man Remington Steele in there anyway. Then the long wait. Then I saw the trailer for Goldeneye, and the fuse was lit! A short time later I saw the movie and sure & certain re-ignition took place. I then read all the Fleming novels before TND came out.

    Thanks Pierce, for the Bond caffeine this sleepy fan needed!

    Wow, it's crazy how much your opinion changed regarding Dalton. If you went back in time and told your younger self just how much you'd love TLD and LTK later in life, what do you think your response would've been?
    It would have been: "Holy crap- I never get fat!!!" And then: "I'll read the books NOW, older me, I SWEAR it!"
    :))
    But then, it might create a time paradox that would destroy reality as we know it.... so I'd pass.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited January 2015 Posts: 11,139
    CR reignited my fandom to a degree where I could dare to be hopeful and proud again. SF was very good but after QoS it would have been harder for Bond 23 to fail than to succeed.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Nope.

    GoldenEye ignited the fire that got me into Bond. That fire has burned hot ever sense and never once waned.
  • edited September 2020 Posts: 2
    No, SF is the most boring Bond film. Too artsy , lacks humor, not colorful, no charisma
  • Posts: 1,917
    I've never needed reignited as a Bond fan. Having a new one is one of life's great pleasures for me. The feeling after seeing the various films may vary, but I have never lost my enthusiasm for Bond and his world.
  • Posts: 7,419
    CR for me too, got me excited to be a Bond fan again, after being in the doldrums during the Brossa era. Liked QOS on first viewing..loved it on subsequent views. SF was a blip for me, just didnt do it for meas a Bond movie, couldn't understand the massive hype, really enjoyed SP ( apart from the final section!!)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Any Bond movie, whether it re-ignites or simply ignites people as fans is worthy. SF, whether you like it or not, really connected with people.
  • Posts: 1,394
    Henry_00 wrote: »
    No, SF is the most boring Bond film. Too artsy , lacks humor, not colorful, no charisma

    This.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    CR is far far superior to SF in every aspect.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    suavejmf wrote: »
    SF is far far superior to CR in every aspect.

    FIFY ;)
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited October 2020 Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    SF is far far superior to CR in every aspect.

    FIFY ;)

    Casino Royale is undisputedly one of the best Bond films in the franchise, but you know what? It's not just a great Bond film, but an overall masterpiece in cinema.

    Craig's reiteration of Bond as a tough, brutal yet suave spy admixed with a thrilling ‘Fleming faithful’ storyline puts this film at the top of most Bond fan’s lists.

    Chris Cornell's explosive intro, "You Know My Name" is the perfect opening for a film that is jam-packed with thrills, plot twists, action and yes- the girls, martinis, exotic locations and the trademark sophistication of James Bond.

    The characters are beautifully fleshed out, from the cool, yet flawed 007 (Daniel Craig) , Vesper Lynd (Eva Greene) M (Dame Judi Dench) , Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini) and of course an unforgettable villain, Le Chiffre (played by the talented Mads Mikkelson).

    Bond's character itself is one that is imperfect, which makes his character all the more appealing and relatable (as Fleming intended). Moreover, the filmmakers bold, yet contentious decision of stripping down on the camp and cutting down on the excessive gadgetry that formed towards the end of Brosnan's run paid off well and gave us a modern version of Fleming.

    David Arnold's music score blends seamlessly with Martin Campbell's direction in the flick, with the soundtrack bringing fresh energy to the film as well as incorporating beautiful tunes and trumpets.

    Skyfall simply pales in comparison.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    SF is far far superior to CR in every aspect.

    FIFY ;)

    Casino Royale is undisputedly one of the best Bond films in the franchise, but you know what? It's not just a great Bond film, but an overall masterpiece in cinema.

    Craig's reiteration of Bond as a tough, brutal yet suave spy admixed with a thrilling ‘Fleming faithful’ storyline puts this film at the top of most Bond fan’s lists.

    Chris Cornell's explosive intro, "You Know My Name" is the perfect opening for a film that is jam-packed with thrills, plot twists, action and yes- the girls, martinis, exotic locations and the trademark sophistication of James Bond.

    The characters are beautifully fleshed out, from the cool, yet flawed 007 (Daniel Craig) , Vesper Lynd (Eva Greene) M (Dame Judi Dench) , Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini) and of course an unforgettable villain, Le Chiffre (played by the talented Mads Mikkelson).

    Bond's character itself is one that is imperfect, which makes his character all the more appealing and relatable (as Fleming intended). Moreover, the filmmakers bold, yet contentious decision of stripping down on the camp and cutting down on the excessive gadgetry that formed towards the end of Brosnan's run paid off well and gave us a modern version of Fleming.

    David Arnold's music score blends seamlessly with Martin Campbell's direction in the flick, with the soundtrack bringing fresh energy to the film as well as incorporating beautiful tunes and trumpets.

    Skyfall simply pales in comparison.

    Can't argue with that. Skyfall's still pretty damn good for sure, but I'll always prefer Craig's first film to it. Two fine films when all is said and done.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    suavejmf wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    SF is far far superior to CR in every aspect.

    FIFY ;)

    Casino Royale is undisputedly one of the best Bond films in the franchise, but you know what? It's not just a great Bond film, but an overall masterpiece in cinema.

    Craig's reiteration of Bond as a tough, brutal yet suave spy admixed with a thrilling ‘Fleming faithful’ storyline puts this film at the top of most Bond fan’s lists.

    Chris Cornell's explosive intro, "You Know My Name" is the perfect opening for a film that is jam-packed with thrills, plot twists, action and yes- the girls, martinis, exotic locations and the trademark sophistication of James Bond.

    The characters are beautifully fleshed out, from the cool, yet flawed 007 (Daniel Craig) , Vesper Lynd (Eva Greene) M (Dame Judi Dench) , Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini) and of course an unforgettable villain, Le Chiffre (played by the talented Mads Mikkelson).

    Bond's character itself is one that is imperfect, which makes his character all the more appealing and relatable (as Fleming intended). Moreover, the filmmakers bold, yet contentious decision of stripping down on the camp and cutting down on the excessive gadgetry that formed towards the end of Brosnan's run paid off well and gave us a modern version of Fleming.

    David Arnold's music score blends seamlessly with Martin Campbell's direction in the flick, with the soundtrack bringing fresh energy to the film as well as incorporating beautiful tunes and trumpets.

    Skyfall simply pales in comparison.

    Can't argue with that. Skyfall's still pretty damn good for sure, but I'll always prefer Craig's first film to it. Two fine films when all is said and done.

    I like all Craig’s films. But the order of quality is the order of release for me. NTTD might change that for me, who knows.
  • quantumspectrequantumspectre argentina
    Posts: 61
    skyfall is about grief and overcome the past, but at the same time acknowledging the present and a tribute to the old. so to me is one of the best movies ever made, besides being a 007 movie. I can feel bond pain and trouble in this movie more than in others.
    thats why i see spectre as a nice second part, because already bond is dealing with himself and the past, and spectre goes beyond. and i need to find time to see NTTD to see how the daniel craig tenure ends.
    being that i am a amateur actor i can say that i love the dramatic tensions those movies have with craig in every scene.
  • Posts: 1,394
    suavejmf wrote: »
    CR is far far superior to SF in every aspect.

    Yep.

  • edited December 2021 Posts: 387
    Second that. Skyfall is boring.

    There are two nice scenes in it, the Tennyson moment and the moment Bond kills the killer with the fight shown in silhouettes. The rest is just filler nicely shot by Deakins.

    They should have gotten Sean Connery to play the landlord. This would have elevated the film to masterpiece. "Welcome to Scotland!" Oh yeah ;)
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 2,161
    I will say that SKYFALL, and the hype surrounding it, peaked my interest and brought me back to the forefront of Bond fandom in a big way. Though I continued to see the entries as they were released (with the exception of TND), I’ve been more or less a casual fan since the 70s (MR substantially killed my enthusiasm), mid-‘60s-TSWLM being my glory years. Beginning with SF I have been more invested than ever.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I will say that SKYFALL, and the hype surrounding it, peaked my interest and brought me back to the forefront of Bond fandom in a big way. Though I continued to see the entries as they were released (with the exception of TND), I’ve been more or less a casual fan since the 70s (MR substantially killed my enthusiasm), mid-‘60s-TSWLM being my glory years. Beginning with SF I have been more invested than ever.

    If there’s a legacy SF leaves behind, reigniting fan interest as well as drawing in new ones is great regardless of how one ultimately feels about it.
  • Posts: 2,161
    I think it's an exciting and impactful entry. The third act loses me (up until the wonderful epilogue), but the rest is strong enough to keep it at the fringes of my Top Ten. And Craig is excellent.
  • Posts: 12,466
    SF is just awesome and one of the series' best to me. I wouldn't exactly say it "re-ignited" my fanhood, but it was a hugely awesome thing to have after the drought since QOS. Looking back now with the Craig era complete, I feel like it's actually the most of an outlier / standalone film; all that connects it really to the rest is a poor retcon in SP. I rewatch it a lot and it's just been a favorite for me since it first came out.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    FoxRox wrote: »
    SF is just awesome and one of the series' best to me. I wouldn't exactly say it "re-ignited" my fanhood, but it was a hugely awesome thing to have after the drought since QOS. Looking back now with the Craig era complete, I feel like it's actually the most of an outlier / standalone film; all that connects it really to the rest is a poor retcon in SP. I rewatch it a lot and it's just been a favorite for me since it first came out.

    Yup. It’s why I rank both CR and SF as Craig’s two best, as they’re able to stand on their own and can work as introductions to newcomers of Bond.
  • Posts: 12,466
    FoxRox wrote: »
    SF is just awesome and one of the series' best to me. I wouldn't exactly say it "re-ignited" my fanhood, but it was a hugely awesome thing to have after the drought since QOS. Looking back now with the Craig era complete, I feel like it's actually the most of an outlier / standalone film; all that connects it really to the rest is a poor retcon in SP. I rewatch it a lot and it's just been a favorite for me since it first came out.

    Yup. It’s why I rank both CR and SF as Craig’s two best, as they’re able to stand on their own and can work as introductions to newcomers of Bond.

    Very true - CR is equally valuable as a standalone experience, but just saying within the context of the entire Craig 'arc,' SF seems the most out of place and individual. They're both such great modern Bond classics though IMO and we're lucky to have gotten them. I happen to also be a pretty big fan of NTTD and QOS, but of course those ones call back to several elements of the other films, so they're not as universal or work as well alone.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    No, you’re right. Other Craig entries like QOS, SP, and NTTD play heavy with the continuity, while SF tried to be its own thing and could easily remain one had SP not try tying Blofeld being culpable of M’s death.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 12,466
    Yes. At the risk of getting too off-topic, I just need to point out as whenever it is brought up how unnecessary it was and how much it frustrated me lol. The retcons in SP were so lazy, forced, and IMO were the worst writing of the Craig era. The intention of Silva having his personal revenge without other influence pre-SP was so obvious, and not for one second did I ever buy him being SPECTRE's member/associate/whatever. I was cool enough with Quantum being tied to SPECTRE, but not him. Just made no sense to me. SF deserves to be recognized as its own thing and I think it will be mostly by casual fans at least anyway.

    Objectively speaking, I'd probably say QOS has the weakest standalone value, even though I think it's a fun, brisk ride; its runtime separates it a lot from the other Craig entries in that respect. SP makes a few references that really weren't necessary; I liked the idea to bring White back and the brief look at the Vesper tape, but all the Blofeld stuff has never once clicked for me. While not close to CR and SF's standalone value, NTTD might be third-best. IMO it did a remarkable job re-introducing characters like Madeleine, Felix, and Blofeld; for instance, Felix randomly appears through the whole franchise like here, and I feel like that's kind of how it worked with Madeleine and Blofeld in this one too. I guess I'd just say I feel like the specific ways they handled things in NTTD, while continuity-heavy, still felt the least detrimental to newcomers' understanding of what's happening I think. Also helps Safin was a separate entity from SPECTRE, which was really nice to get before Craig's era ended.

    Wow, this ended up way longer than I intended lol but I get passionate when I talk about this stuff. SF just worked perfectly at the time as the 50th anniversary, standalone Bond experience that united veterans and newcomers I feel like. And ultimately this one and CR are what Craig is going to be most remembered for. At this point it seems highly unlikely either loses luster with the general Bond fan consensus. SF rocks, and I just feel sorry for the ones who find it overrated and can't get enjoyment out of it. For me it's a modern classic and stands up to the golden era of 60s films.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,109
    I have been a fan for well over 40 years and never needed my interest in Bond re igniting.

    Regarding the Mendes films they were both dissapointing for me.

    The beauty of Bond is we have so many great and occasionally bad films to revisit indefinitely so even if the film series finished tomorrow I would keep watching all the films for the rest of my Die Another Days.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 7,419
    I would say it was more CR that re-ignited me as a Bond fan, after the dire Brossa era! I still went to every one, but it was depressing to watch each one more rubbish than the last, and especially when I envisaged ( wrongly, Thank God!) that Brossa was going to go on for another 2 or 3 appearances considering his youthfulness and the good box office!
    It was great to see the enthusiasm for SF, and the almost universal praise for it, but for me the film did not live up to the hype, and I still find it a frustratingly disappointing watch!
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited December 2021 Posts: 693
    My immediate reaction to seeing Skyfall in theaters was that it reminded me of Die Another Day with all of its callbacks and self-awareness. Obviously DAD is goofier in terms of its plot, but both SF and DAD approach Bond in exactly the same way by treating him as a cultural symbol as opposed to an actual person. I chalk this up to EON's obsession with making anniversary movies. It was barely tolerable in DAD but in SF it was especially egregious because it was such a harsh break from the realism of CR and QOS. In fact it was so harsh that I wasn't even sure if it was supposed to be in the same continuity. For a while I thought the particular Bond Craig was playing in SF might have actually been a continuation of "Prime Bond," i.e. Connery through Brosnan, as opposed to the character from CR and QOS. Then Spectre came along and made sure everyone knew that CR, QOS, and SF were one continuity that was separate from what came before.

    It's difficult for me to see SF as a legitimate Bond movie at all. The pieces are all there but they're all out of place and upside down. Bond doesn't really seem like Bond. M doesn't really seem like M. So much is pilfered from the Nolan Batman movies, from the plot right down the imagery (Bond standing on the rooftop looking over London with his walking coat flapping like a cape). And the movie is overall very stagey, right from scene one where Bond inexplicably steps into frame dramatically as if he knows a camera is there. The movie lacks the tactile quality of CR and QOS. It's devoid of life and tension. It's all image and nothing else. A very hollow and in my opinion boring experience. Even during the opening chase, which is very linear and unexciting, I was sighing and wondering when it was going to end.

    Skyfall isn't as bad as Spectre but for me it derailed the Craig era by turning everything into a contrived soap opera. Every villain and plot after SF would involve a figure from the past coming back to get some kind of revenge in the present, and the figure would always be a creepy, soft-spoken villain. At the same time, I understand why SF was such a big hit, because it was perfectly-tailored for modern sensibilities especially in regards to plots. People like the superhero/soap opera stuff. Hell look at the Fast and Furious movies, they went in the same direction. But for me it's not Bond.



  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,798
    slide_99 wrote: »
    My immediate reaction to seeing Skyfall in theaters was that it reminded me of Die Another Day with all of its callbacks and self-awareness. Obviously DAD is goofier in terms of its plot, but both SF and DAD approach Bond in exactly the same way by treating him as a cultural symbol as opposed to an actual person. I chalk this up to EON's obsession with making anniversary movies. It was barely tolerable in DAD but in SF it was especially egregious because it was such a harsh break from the realism of CR and QOS. In fact it was so harsh that I wasn't even sure if it was supposed to be in the same continuity. For a while I thought the particular Bond Craig was playing in SF might have actually been a continuation of "Prime Bond," i.e. Connery through Brosnan, as opposed to the character from CR and QOS. Then Spectre came along and made sure everyone knew that CR, QOS, and SF were one continuity that was separate from what came before.

    It's difficult for me to see SF as a legitimate Bond movie at all. The pieces are all there but they're all out of place and upside down. Bond doesn't really seem like Bond. M doesn't really seem like M. So much is pilfered from the Nolan Batman movies, from the plot right down the imagery (Bond standing on the rooftop looking over London with his walking coat flapping like a cape). And the movie is overall very stagey, right from scene one where Bond inexplicably steps into frame dramatically as if he knows a camera is there. The movie lacks the tactile quality of CR and QOS. It's devoid of life and tension. It's all image and nothing else. A very hollow and in my opinion boring experience. Even during the opening chase, which is very linear and unexciting, I was sighing and wondering when it was going to end.

    Skyfall isn't as bad as Spectre but for me it derailed the Craig era by turning everything into a contrived soap opera. Every villain and plot after SF would involve a figure from the past coming back to get some kind of revenge in the present, and the figure would always be a creepy, soft-spoken villain. At the same time, I understand why SF was such a big hit, because it was perfectly-tailored for modern sensibilities especially in regards to plots. People like the superhero/soap opera stuff. Hell look at the Fast and Furious movies, they went in the same direction. But for me it's not Bond.



    I concur with all of it, Slide.
    And to answer the question my own self, re-discovering Dalton's two after reading all the Fleming books is what re-ignited my fan jets!
  • Posts: 1,917
    chrisisall wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    My immediate reaction to seeing Skyfall in theaters was that it reminded me of Die Another Day with all of its callbacks and self-awareness. Obviously DAD is goofier in terms of its plot, but both SF and DAD approach Bond in exactly the same way by treating him as a cultural symbol as opposed to an actual person. I chalk this up to EON's obsession with making anniversary movies. It was barely tolerable in DAD but in SF it was especially egregious because it was such a harsh break from the realism of CR and QOS. In fact it was so harsh that I wasn't even sure if it was supposed to be in the same continuity. For a while I thought the particular Bond Craig was playing in SF might have actually been a continuation of "Prime Bond," i.e. Connery through Brosnan, as opposed to the character from CR and QOS. Then Spectre came along and made sure everyone knew that CR, QOS, and SF were one continuity that was separate from what came before.

    It's difficult for me to see SF as a legitimate Bond movie at all. The pieces are all there but they're all out of place and upside down. Bond doesn't really seem like Bond. M doesn't really seem like M. So much is pilfered from the Nolan Batman movies, from the plot right down the imagery (Bond standing on the rooftop looking over London with his walking coat flapping like a cape). And the movie is overall very stagey, right from scene one where Bond inexplicably steps into frame dramatically as if he knows a camera is there. The movie lacks the tactile quality of CR and QOS. It's devoid of life and tension. It's all image and nothing else. A very hollow and in my opinion boring experience. Even during the opening chase, which is very linear and unexciting, I was sighing and wondering when it was going to end.

    Skyfall isn't as bad as Spectre but for me it derailed the Craig era by turning everything into a contrived soap opera. Every villain and plot after SF would involve a figure from the past coming back to get some kind of revenge in the present, and the figure would always be a creepy, soft-spoken villain. At the same time, I understand why SF was such a big hit, because it was perfectly-tailored for modern sensibilities especially in regards to plots. People like the superhero/soap opera stuff. Hell look at the Fast and Furious movies, they went in the same direction. But for me it's not Bond.
    I concur with all of it, Slide.
    And to answer the question my own self, re-discovering Dalton's two after reading all the Fleming books is what re-ignited my fan jets!

    A lot of my feelings about SF echoed in your post as well, Slide_99, that I found very detailed.

    The Dalton era also got me recharged in a new way as well after the dud that was AVTAK. CR as well. But I've never needed much to recharge if it's James Bond.

    Chrisisall, forgive me if I missed it somewhere, but is there another thread where you review SF or write at length about your problems with it or can you give a brief overview of why you place it dead last on your list? I'm genuinely curious. Unless it's to painful to do, of course.
Sign In or Register to comment.